4.2 Article

The effects of saliva collection, handling and storage on salivary testosterone measurement

Journal

STEROIDS
Volume 78, Issue 14, Pages 1325-1331

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2013.09.002

Keywords

Saliva; Testosterone; ELISA; Sample processing

Funding

  1. Slovak Research and Development Agency grant [APVV-0753-10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several endocrine parameters commonly measured in plasma, such as steroid hormones, can be measured in the oral fluid. However, there are several technical aspects of saliva sampling and processing that can potentially bias the validity of salivary testosterone measurement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects caused by repeated sampling; 5 min centrifugation (at 2000, 6000 or 10,000g); the stimulation of saliva flow by a cotton swab soaked in 2% citric acid touching the tongue; different storage times and conditions as well as the impact of blood contamination on salivary testosterone concentration measured using a commercially available ELISA kit. Fresh, unprocessed, unstimulated saliva samples served as a control. Salivary testosterone concentrations were influenced neither by repeated sampling nor by stimulation of salivary flow. Testosterone levels determined in samples stored in various laboratory conditions for time periods up to 1 month did not differ in comparison with controls. For both genders, salivary testosterone levels were substantially reduced after centrifugation (men F = 29.1; women F = 56.17, p < 0.0001). Blood contamination decreased salivary testosterone levels in a dose-dependent manner (men F = 6.54, p < 0.01, F = 5.01, p < 0.05). Salivary testosterone can be considered A robust and stable marker. However, saliva processing and blood leakage can introduce bias into measurements of salivary testoterone using ELISA. Our observations should be considered in studies focusing on salivary testosterone. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available